INDRAVADAN H. SURATWALA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5 (1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1690/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 August 2022AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without a mandatory reference to the DVO, and the CIT(A) orders were passed ex parte without evidence of proper service of notices. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 were against ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The lower authorities had invoked Section 50C for capital gains and added cash deposits as unexplained income.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings were validly initiated without a statutory reference to the DVO, and whether ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were sustainable without proof of service.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C,Section 54F,Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 are against separate orders of the CIT(A)-4 and CIT(A)-13, Pune dated 25-09-2019 and 14-06-2019; passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-4/ITO Ward-5(1)/214/2014-15 and PN/CIT(A)-13/ITO Ward 5(1)/637/2014-15 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act” respectively.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

3.

I note with the able assistance coming from Revenue side and from a perusal of both these case files that the learned lower authorities have mainly invoked section 50-C capital gains in latter A.Y. 2007-08 followed by rejection of 54F deduction as well as cash deposits which stand added as unexplained u/s 68/69 of the Act in A.Y. 2006-07; respectively.

4.

Mr. Jasnani could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the learned lower authorities had initiated the impugned reopening(s) against the assessee and thereafter framed these twin re-assessments adding long term capital gain in A.Y. 2007-08 without making a statutory reference to the D.V.O which has and 1814/PUN/2019 Indravardan H. Suratwala A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) 373 ITR 83 (Cal). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the CIT(A)’s orders under challenge in both these cases have been passed ex parte without even indicating any evidence of actual service of notices as per the respective tabulations in para 3 para 1 in both these assessment years. Faced with this situation, I deem it proper to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the CIT(A) for his fresh appropriate adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

5.

Delay of 84 days in filing assessee’s latter appeal in is condoned in light of fact the CIT(A)’s order in issue had been passed ex parte.

6.

These assessee’s twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this order be placed in respect case files.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 11th August 2022.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →